The present invention concerns shaped charge projectiles adapted to defeat targets fitted with reactive and passive armour in combination. A reactive armour comprises explosive charges sandwiched between metal plates and adapted to be detonated upon being activated by an oncoming projectile, e.g. a shaped charge projectile, whereby the metal plates of the reactive armour are thrown in opposite directions thereby preventing the penetration of the so-called jet, (also referred to in the art as "prong" or "spike") of the shaped charge. Reactive armours of this kind are described, for example, in U.S. Pat. No. 4,368,660, B.P. 1,581,125 as well as European Patent Application No. 85 101 340.9 published on Nov. 21, 1985 under U.S. Pat. No. 0,161,390.
Reactive armour, in particular of the kind described in the above-mentioned European Patent Application No. 85 101 340.9, is added on the main body, passive armour ont he outer side thereof and it successfully averts the capacity of a shaped charge to penetrate the passive armour. In this way a decisive advantage is imparted to attacking tanks and armoured vehicles fitted with such an armour. In an effort to overcome this problem, it has already been proposed to use against reactive armour two-stage projectiles with two aligned shaped charges, an aft principal charge and a fore, smaller secondary charge (see, for example, Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Ballistics, The Hague, April 1983, American Defence Preparedness Association (ADPA), pp 251-256). Upon detonation the secondary shaped charge initiates the reactive armour thereby causing it to detonate and this is intended to pave the way for the jet of the principal charge that forms upon detonation of the latter after a predetermined time delay. However, all these attempts have so far not led to a useful product, among others for the reason that the problem of avoiding the adverse effect of the detonating secondary charge on the yet undetonated principal charge caused by reaction forces, rearward expanding combustion gases and rearward flying debris was not solved. In view of this, in the hitherto made proposals the time delay between detonation of the secondary and principal charges had to be very short within the order of small fractions of 1 m.sec. in order to avoid the development of any damaging effect of the exploding secondary charge on the principal charge, which would develop if the delay were longer. Such short delays, however, do not enable a full disposal of the reactive armour prior to the initiation of the principal charge with the consequence that the desired effect is not achieved.